Hollie McNish does the maths for you rapping. Just listen.
http://www.upworthy.com/next-time-someone-tells-you-that-immigrants-are-destroying-our-country-show-them-this
Her website: http://holliemcnish.com/
Blunt & Disorderly
religion, europe, democracy and ethics ... for liberal minds only
05 June 2013
01 June 2013
Austerity weights on taxpayers, not migrants!
I have always liked the Financial Times, so as an assiduous and faithful reader, I got quite a shock when I read yesterday's crap editorial supporting the Government's standoff with the European Commission. The FT seems to believe in that mythical beast of ‘benefit tourism', invented by the populist media. People don't normally leave their own country for miserable welfare benefits. There are people, many from the UK, who travel to eastern Europe to get their teeth fixed. Shall we crack down on that?
The proposal by the UK government to restrict access to benefits and, possibly, services for European citizens is a clear case of discrimination on the grounds of nationality and therefore in breach of the Maastricht Treaty. It is also disingenuous, xenophobic and dangerous. It is disingenuous because migrants contribute to the public pursue much more than they receive. This is supported by research at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and research centres at UCL and the University of Oxford.
Migration is vital to economic growth; restrictions on rights will deter migration and impact adversely on the British economy. The British welfare system needs reform, not cut backs. If one is concerned about the costs to the state, one should wonder why the government keeps on following the wrong economic policies.
It is austerity that is a weight on taxpayers, not migrants!
The move is xenophobic for it fails to recognise the economic and cultural contribution of migrants and the exploitation many of them suffer. It is also dangerous at a time of democratic and economic crisis on which far-right movements are capitalising. The government might cherish a court battle with ‘Europe’ for political expediency, but it is Britain that has everything to lose in giving in to populist xenophobia. It is disconcerting to see the authoritative Financial Times fail to understand the importance of upholding the rights of all citizens, sustaining a liberal economy, and recognising the dignity of all people.
The proposal by the UK government to restrict access to benefits and, possibly, services for European citizens is a clear case of discrimination on the grounds of nationality and therefore in breach of the Maastricht Treaty. It is also disingenuous, xenophobic and dangerous. It is disingenuous because migrants contribute to the public pursue much more than they receive. This is supported by research at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and research centres at UCL and the University of Oxford.
Migration is vital to economic growth; restrictions on rights will deter migration and impact adversely on the British economy. The British welfare system needs reform, not cut backs. If one is concerned about the costs to the state, one should wonder why the government keeps on following the wrong economic policies.
It is austerity that is a weight on taxpayers, not migrants!
The move is xenophobic for it fails to recognise the economic and cultural contribution of migrants and the exploitation many of them suffer. It is also dangerous at a time of democratic and economic crisis on which far-right movements are capitalising. The government might cherish a court battle with ‘Europe’ for political expediency, but it is Britain that has everything to lose in giving in to populist xenophobia. It is disconcerting to see the authoritative Financial Times fail to understand the importance of upholding the rights of all citizens, sustaining a liberal economy, and recognising the dignity of all people.
27 May 2013
Same-Sex Marriage & Freedom of Religion in Britain & France
The
opposition to same-sex marriage in France has turned ugly leaving 36 wounded
after yesterday’s demonstration. It is worth reflecting on ‘marriage’ from a legal,
social, and religious perspective in France and in Britain. At the core of the
matter is not ‘gay rights’ or marriage, but freedom of conscience and religion.
Legal:
Rights and Conscience
People, in
France and Britain, are mostly fine with the legal recognition of rights for homosexual
couples, afforded by the French ‘pacs’ and British ‘civil partnerships’.
I have an issue with these contracts and the marriage contract in that they lack
terms & conditions (see post), but that's another issue.
The main
problem is that some people, in both countries, keep on conflating the law with
morality. One can believe that homosexuality is wrong (morality), but one
should not impose one’s (particular) morality on all others (law). There are some
moral principles that need to impose on all, such as respect for other people’s
lives, property etc. Freedom of conscience and religion protects one from being
imposed another’s religious or ideological viewpoint. See Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Social: Are
homosexuals imposing their morality on others?
Some argue
that the recognition of same-sex marriage changes the ‘definition’ of marriage
thus impacting on heterosexual couples. They are right, to a point; yet the legal framework
is only a recognition of a social reality. There are homosexual couples and they
have children.
Families and marriage have changed throughout
history. During Roman times, adoption had nothing to do with providing a home
to an orphan, and many people were part of the familia, who were not blood relations. The legal status of women has also changed marriage and families ... but of course, for some marriage a religious sacrament, isn't it?
Religion: Love,
Romance and God
The
Catholic Church took over a thousand years to make marriage into a sacrament. At
the beginning of Christianity it was the lesser evil. Chastity was the
newfangled thing and marriage was shunned. Until Constantine (325 CE), it was
a private matter. For the Cathars sex and marriage were evil. They got massacred,
but that’s another story. For a long time, it didn’t need a priest and happened
according to local customs. Then, came the Reformation and the Catholic Church recognised
marriage (and other ‘sacraments’) in Canon Law, in 1547.
Marriage
was a jolly good thing in ancient Judaism, especially if you were a man. It included
polygamy and if a woman’s husband died, you would have to marry her late
husband’s brother. It was a way for men to get heirs and women to get
livelihood. I’m not saying that there was no love and romance, only that love
is a separate issue. There’s a lot of romance in the bible (also in the
Talmud). I recommend reading about the love between Jonathan and David ... oops!
Freedom of
Religion and of Conscience
France’s much
prided läicité (secularism) has shown that secularism is everything but
neutral. Opponents of same-sex marriage would argue that the morality of
homosexuals is being imposed on others. That's nonsene because the law does not prevent anyone to form heterosexual partnerships or to think that
homosexuality is wrong. That’s freedom of conscience (Art. 9!).
In Britain,
MPs, who get easily confused by all matters to do with the law, got mixed up
between legal recognition of same-sex partnerships (done & dusted!) and
religion. So those who voted against same-sex marriage, voted against freedom of
religion.
Before the latest act, only some religious marriages (=religious act performed by a figure) were recognised by the law. Churches and synagogues that had been celebrating same-sex marriages
for decades (yep!) could not be granted the same legal recognition that was
granted to the heterosexual marriages they themselves celebrated. The opposition to the
recognition of all marriages celebrated by religious institutions means that
some religious authorities want to impose their reading of Scriptures and
tradition on other religious authorities. It’s nothing to do with legal rights,
only with one’s religious acts being recognised. It's freedom of religion. Remember the Cathars? Now go in peace!
22 April 2013
Immigration Facts (updated)
Here are links with research on immigration:
Immigration & (unlikely) pressure on health service in UK & Germany:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/11/07/immigration-and-health-wadsworth/
The game changer? Immigration & the media:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/oana-romocea/immigration-the-game-changer-british-politics_b_3260594.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Migrants are net contributors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/uk-benefits-eu-migrants-what-crisis
http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/migrants-benefits-and-public-services.html
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Press_release_A8fiscalimpact.pdf
Immigration raises income: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/22/immigration_raises_american_income.html
Crime doesn't rise in high immigration areas:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/28/immigration-impact-crime
Compilation of research:
http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/Food_for_Thought/UKEUMigration.html
On lump of labour fallacy:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100208823/immigration-if-only-politicians-would-lead-not-follow/
Reflections on growth and immigration:
http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-economic-objectives-of-immigration.html
The problem with Migration Watch:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/jonathan-portes-the-pressure-group-playing-fast-and-loose-with-evidence-6287414.html
Immigration & (unlikely) pressure on health service in UK & Germany:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/11/07/immigration-and-health-wadsworth/
The game changer? Immigration & the media:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/oana-romocea/immigration-the-game-changer-british-politics_b_3260594.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Migrants are net contributors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/uk-benefits-eu-migrants-what-crisis
http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/migrants-benefits-and-public-services.html
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Press_release_A8fiscalimpact.pdf
Immigration raises income: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/22/immigration_raises_american_income.html
Crime doesn't rise in high immigration areas:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/28/immigration-impact-crime
Compilation of research:
http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/Food_for_Thought/UKEUMigration.html
On lump of labour fallacy:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100208823/immigration-if-only-politicians-would-lead-not-follow/
Reflections on growth and immigration:
http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-economic-objectives-of-immigration.html
The problem with Migration Watch:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/jonathan-portes-the-pressure-group-playing-fast-and-loose-with-evidence-6287414.html
06 April 2013
The Lost Voice of Liberalism
I finally left the Liberal Democrats a few weeks ago,
after Nick Clegg’s anti-immigration stance. This has really crossed the line for me.
I was
supportive of the coalition in the first year and thought that many of the
initial policies demonstrated responsibility and a liberal approach. Since
then, the Liberal Democrats have acted as a fig leaf for catastrophic
government policies. It is disheartening to hear Liberal Democrats defending
failed austerity policies, passing NHS plans that mimic the privatisation of
the 1990s, and nodding through a welfare reform that demonises the unemployed
at a time when finding a job is difficult. To my knowledge, there has been no
effort to investigate the best policies by comparing with other European
systems. Indeed this government has succeeded in isolating Britain from the EU.
The Liberal Democrats have failed to be the voice of liberalism.
Over the years, I have been ignored by the party even
though the policies I suggested were sound, including raising the issue tax
avoidance through various loopholes such as transfer pricing (see article), and reform of higher education rather than play around
with fees (see post). I am, therefore, under no illusion that I could
possibly influence the leadership to change course. Yet, last month, I wrote to
Nick Clegg (see previous post) asking for the Liberal
Democrats to stop the government’s proposals to curtail benefits for
immigrants. Not only did I not receive a reply, but I witnessed the Liberal
Democrats’ leader espouse the same xenophobic rhetoric.
This is not a compromise resulting from being in
government; it is a populist and degrading move. It is not economically sound,
it will only mean more illegal immigration. If there is growth, something the
government has lost sight of, there will be immigration. If there is no growth,
immigrants leave or choose better economies. Immigration brings enormous
benefits (see Jonathan Portes’ blog post).
There are problems, of course, mostly dependent on the
excessive restrictions on immigration that create trafficking and illegal
immigration, that force immigrants to blackmailed and live in appalling conditions.
It is also a challenge to provide good
services, make the economy grow for all and build trust among all residents. It
is the challenge of a pluralist society. Thus, above all, rules on immigration portray
what kind of society we want to be.
It seems that the government wants a closed, fearful
and racist society. This is not the Britain I know, but I might be wrong. It
might be the Britain the government is fostering. I, therefore, refuse any
association with this government. The country has lost the voice of liberalism, the Liberal Democrats have lost all dignity.
05 March 2013
Immigration, Mr Clegg, ain't so bad!
My letter to Nick Clegg on the latest proposals on immigration.
Dear Mr Clegg,
I have read about the latest government proposals over benefits for immigrants and I am shocked that the Liberal Democrats do not seem to be opposing the changes. The whole debate on immigration has been dominated by negative and hateful rhetoric for many years. I have been living in the UK for over 15 years where I have studied, worked and served as a Liberal Democrat councillor. During my years as a councillor, I have never heard my constituents mentioning my nationality. Yet, the media and political parties have legitimised a discourse that is narrow-minded, racist and bigoted.
The loss of confidence in the immigration system is not a result of Labour’s miscalculation of possible Polish immigrants, as you suggested in an interview, but the constant negative rhetoric over immigration and foreigners, and the inability of implementing effective policies. A report by the Migration Observatory of the University of Oxford found that public opinion in Britain is more strongly opposed to immigration than public opinion in other comparable European and North American countries. Political parties are directly responsible for this.
Another report by the Migration Observatory found that the net fiscal contribution of migrants is higher than the UK-born value. In 2003-2004 the net fiscal contribution of migrants was negative, however it was less negative than that of the UK-born individuals. An LSE report found that immigrants are generally younger and better educated than British-born. They tend to be employed and less likely to live in social housing. There is little evidence of an overall negative impact on jobs and wages.
A recent Home Office report (N. 68, November 2012) reported on the emigration from the UK. In 2011, 57% of the people emigrating from the UK were EU and non-EU citizens. The “migration of EU citizens is more ‘circular’ than of non-EU citizens”. Thus, the ‘threat’, if there ever was one, of a surge of immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania lacks evidence.
Immigration rhetoric has only produced bad policies, including the revenue-making test and ceremony for British naturalisation, not to mention its absurd and ideological questions. The way successive governments have tried to define ‘Britishness’ has bordered on racist. I do not believe the government propaganda reflects the Britain I know, which is far more liberal than its political parties and media.
Considering that “the UK ranks eighth highest in the world in terms of the number of its nationals living abroad”, the British government should welcome and support new immigrants. It is when one feels valued that one is encouraged to give back. Leaving one’s country is always difficult and painful. This should not be exacerbated by spite and discrimination. The government proposals go against fundamental liberal principles, European citizenship and, above all, human dignity. Are the Liberal Democrats capitulating to the same xenophobia?
Francesca
|
27 February 2013
Sowing the seeds of an Italian spring
The Italian election resulted in a deadlock with no clear winner. But while Italy is stuck between politics as usual and a sterile protest vote, the seeds of a ‘liberal revolution’ have discretely been sown. Could this mark the beginning of an Italian spring?
Read my article here.
Read my article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)